Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

A Convenient Truth

By Chris Suellentrop May 22, 2008 1:59 pmMay 22, 2008 1:59 pm

Hillary Clinton’s invocation Wednesday of abolitionism, women’s suffrage and the 2000 Florida recount (in relation to her desire to see the Michigan and Florida delegations seated without penalty at the Democratic National Convention this summer) hasn’t gone over well in some corners of liberal blogland.

I try not to make moralistic characterological judgments about politicians, because all politicians compromise their ideals in the pursuit of power. There are no angels in this business. Clinton’s gambit, however, truly is breathtaking.

If she’s consciously lying, it’s a shockingly cynical move. I don’t think she’s lying. I think she’s so convinced of her own morality and historical importance that she can whip herself into a moralistic fervor to support nearly any position that might benefit her, however crass and sleazy. It’s not just that she’s convinced herself it’s okay to try to steal the nomination, she has also appropriated the most sacred legacies of liberalism for her effort to do so.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo is similarly shocked by Clinton’s rhetoric. “She is embarking on a gambit that is uncertain in its result and simply breathtaking in its cynicism,” he writes. He later adds:

One of her most senior advisors, Harold Ickes, was on the DNC committee that voted to sanction Florida and Michigan by not including their delegates. Her campaign completely signed off on sanctions after that. And there are actually numerous quotes from the Senator herself saying those primaries didn’t and wouldn’t count. Michigan and Florida were sanctioned because they ignored the rules the DNC had set down for running this year’s nomination process.

The evidence is simply overwhelming that Sen. Clinton didn’t think this was a problem at all — until it became a vehicle to provide a rationale for her continued campaign.

Now, that’s politics. One day you’re on one side of an issue, the next you’re on the other, all depending on the tactical necessities of the moment. But that’s not what Clinton is doing. She’s elevating it to a level of principle — first principles — on par with the great voting rights struggles of history.

Marshall concludes: “What she’s doing is not securing her the nomination. Rather, she’s gunning up a lot of her supporters to believe that the nomination was stolen from her — a belief many won’t soon abandon. And that on the basis of rationales and arguments there’s every reason to think she doesn’t even believe in.”

I’m starting to question Ms. Clinton’s mental state. Her apparent absolute refusal to accept reality, along with her implication of divine right to ascend to the Presidency make me wonder if she is stable enough to be nominee material.

Counting all the votes in Florida in 2000 would have been the right thing to do. Counting all the votes in Michigan and Florida in 2008 would not be the right thing to do.

I shouldn’t be surprised. The DNC has already demonstrated that the rules are meant to be followed, except when they aren’t, and states that don’t follow them should be penalized (MI and FL) except when they shouldn’t be (NH, NV, SC).

Clinton’s use of the faux-primaries in Michigan and Florida is a stab in the back to the entire Democratic Party. What’s awful is that, from the minute she started this nonsense in January, I knew she would get away with it, because an understanding of why her position is cynical and wrong is beyond the complexity of most US media outlets.

Meanwhile, “count every vote” is a simple soundbyte, and that seems to be the message that way too many voters are getting from this. Never mind that the presidential primaries in Florida and Michigan (where Obama wasn’t even on the ballot, in support of national party rules) were completely un-democratic elections.

Josh Marshall is right that there’s no way Clinton is going to get the nomination based on this stab-in-the-back tactic. Superdelegates won’t fall for it. But many ordinary voters will, and it could cost Obama the general election. Which makes it seem that Clinton’s real strategy now is to get McCain elected in 2008 so that she can try for the nomination again in 2012. I’m just appalled at how many people continue to support Clinton’s candidacy given how blatantly unethical she is!

IF the Florida and Michigan delates were seated and counted it would disenfranchise all the voters from those states who did not vote because they knew their votes would not be counted. And how does one count the popular vote in caucus states? If the nomination were to be decided by popular votes, then Obama would have run a different campaign. Senator Clinton is in this position because of her bellicose votes in the Senate and because she ran a lousy campaign. And because people don’t trust her.

“Cynical” is certainly one way to describe Hillary Clinton’s latest gambit, although there are certainly other, more colorful ones. However, what is most distressing is her willingness and the willingness of some her supporters (think the WomenCount pac) to use the achievements and struggles of generations of civil and gender rights activists for personal political gain. By conflating her personal drive for power with larger (and far more noble) struggles for voting rights and equal opportunity, she demeans the latter. Certainly, hers is not the strategy of one who is a high-minded advocate for right.

I am no longer surprised by the cynical nature of the Clinton campaign. But the feigned concern over the poor Michigan and Florida delegates being disenfranchised really carries it to another level.

I am not a woman but I don’t see the alleged high level of gender bias the Clinton supporters complain about. Has there been some gender bias? Yes undoubtedly. Has there been racial bias against Obama? Yes and it’s deeper and more blatant than the gender bias against Clinton. Have any voters been quoted as saying they wouldn’t vote for Clinton because she’s a woman? Not that I’ve seen. But the naked racial bias expressed in the polling in W. Virginia and Kentucky was shocking if not entirely surprising.

What’s even more insidious however is the both Clintons attempt to exacerbate that bias for their own political gains. Obama’s not a muslim “as far as I know”. I’m the preferred candidate of “hard working white blue collar voters.”

The Clintons have shown they will stop at nothing to secure the nomination. But now that the nomination is 99% Obama’s one has to ask why are they continuing this scorched earth policy? Are they so cynical that they’re willing to sabotage Obama to the extent that the election is handed to John McBush? For what, a 2012 run? What will we have left as a country with another 4 years of Bush’s disastrous policies?

I voted for Bill Clinton twice but this campaign has only served as a reminder of the lost opportunities (healthcare was set back years by Hilary’s ham handed management of that effort) that resulted from the cynical “Clintonian” approach to government.

I agree fully with the critique of Sen. Clinton’s position reversal on the seating of the delegates from Mich and Fla. But here’s where the mainstream media can and must play a powerful role in driving home the truth of Clinton’s position. Anytime she asserts the delegates should be seated, the media should point out what she signed off on until it no longer suited her. Politicians can lie and flip. The job of the 4th arm of govt is to point it out clearly and consistently.

Write on! Someone needs to get to HRC. What she is doing now is definitely harming the party. I would have never thought that the Clitons would sell the party and the parties unity out just because HRC has run a campaign that could not capture the hearts and minds of Americans like Obama has. She is single handedly causing people to polarize their anger which should be directed at the Republicans towards the Democrats. I am a life long Democrat, and the only Democrat who has caused as much trouble as she is doing is George Wallace. It’s amazing what the lure of power will cause a person to become or do. She is behind in this process because she is too much like the Republicans the Democrats are trying to defeat. It’s time for the superdelegates to become super and cast their votes for Obama.

I don’t think stolen is the right word. If Obama would have been put under the microscope in January instead of April, Clinon might be the nominee right now. I don’t particularly care for Clinton, but she’s had a raw deal. This is a no-win situation for the democrats. The democrats will win Congress and the republicans will win the White House.

This goes far beyond morality. It has to do with the Democratic party deciding what the main reason is for holding a primary in the first place. If it is to determine the most electable candidate, then masking the primary result by using party rules to distort the relative strength of the candidates defeats the purpose. Hillary Clinton is showing herself by all measures, electoral and otherwise, to be more electable candidate and to have the best reasoned positions. Here is why the party needs to come to its senses:

Why the Democrats Need a Clinton/Obama Ticket

The Democratic Party faces a dilemma needing the services of Solomon. While Barack Obama is ahead in the pledged delegate count and will remain that way into the convention, Hillary Clinton is increasingly showing herself to be the more electable candidate. Why? Because the frequently bandied-about assertion that they are virtually indistinguishable on policy is patently false. In the areas of energy, the economy, the manned space program, and foreign policy, Hillary Clinton has policies and a record which are clearly more palatable to most voters. Barack Obama has reached enormous popularity by deliberately down-playing his policies while Hillary Clinton has been open and frank about hers. As a result, I believe in hypothetical matchups with John McCain, once issues become highlighted, Barack Obama’s numbers are likely to go down while Hillary Clinton’s current numbers are worst case and have nowhere to go but up.

Hillary Clinton’s positions on energy are the best of any of the three candidates. Energy professionals agree that nothing short of an aggressive multi-faceted approach can stave off a possible world-wide economic crisis due to energy prices spiraling out of control. Conservation and green technology must be combined with increased domestic oil production to moderate the rise in oil and gas prices even as we continue to reduce our usage. Hillary Clinton was the only major Democratic nominee who voted for S. 3711 [109th]: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, a Senate bill to enhance energy security by providing for mineral production in the Gulf of Mexico. That bill passed 71-25, but did not continue through the House. Barack Obama voted against it. While John McCain acknowledges the need to combat global warming, he believes market forces alone can encourage us through the transition, but he missed two votes which would have moved us in that direction. Those bills failed by one vote. Democrats realize that a combination of market forces and regulation is absolutely necessary to reduce our dependence on carbon dioxide polluting fuels, and Hillary Clinton is fully prepared to use the power of the presidency for this purpose.

On the economy, Hillary Clinton recognizes that those responsible Americans in the lowest income brackets must be helped through the mortgage crisis, health care costs and the inevitable rise in energy prices. The rest of us depend on these workers and it is in our interest to see to it that they do not experience economic disaster.

Hillary Clinton is supportive of continuing our efforts in the manned space program while Barack Obama would further delay our next space vehicle by another five years in order to fund education initiatives. But doing so could ultimately increase the cost of our space program in the long run as we pay for half finished designs and seek to replace the brain drain of space contract workers who are forced to seek other employment. Also, unlike in past years, we would be in real danger of being left behind by other countries in the exploration of space.

On foreign policy, Hillary Clinton proposes the best balance of carrots and sticks of any of the candidates. Her idea of a nuclear attack protection umbrella over not only Israel, but all Middle East countries is an excellent one to tamp down nuclear proliferation in the area, including weapons which could eventually find themselves in the hands of terrorists. It also greatly increases our chances of successful diplomacy with Iran.

And finally, while Hillary Clinton did vote for the Iraq war resolution in 2002, she outlined a specific course of action in her floor speech designed to greatly reduce the chances of war while greatly increasing the chances of unfettered weapons inspections. She also warned what not to do. Unfortunately, her advice was ignored.

Barack Obama is a greatly talented candidate who is the first to understand the language, tolerance, and multiculturalism of the upcoming generation of young adults. His openness to seeing everyone as human and open to negotiation is a breath of fresh air. But he needs to spend more time on the national and international stage and delve more into the complexities of moving forward beneficial legislation while dealing with the mass of varying opinion in this country and the world. I sincerely hope the Democratic party will come together to support a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Excellent article! I was beginning to think that I was crazy…Alll this Hillaryland self-righteous talk on the voting rights of the American people. Did I miss something?
What I do not understand is where are the Democratic Party elders(Dean,Pelosi,Gore,etc.) who can put an end to this? My opinion is that at this point, such Clinton spin is not only divisive, but is presently weakening the momentum of the Democratic party. It is time to move forward and give Senator Obama his due.

From the start, the DNC leadership has stated that there would be sanctions against Florida and Michigan for the early primaries, even though it was the Republican legislature and governor who set the date, knowing that it would cause divisiveness in the Party. So there should be no reason for not credentialing at 100% the Florida delegation.

Moreover, Howard Dean publicly turned down offers of donations to pay for do-overs in Florida and Michigan if the DNC would only put a link on their website. I was there, and one of the offerors.

The DNC gave Obama veto power over the do-overs. Michigan was set to fund such an election, but his supporters blocked the legislation. In Florida, his opposition kept similar legislation from getting off the ground.

Who set up a system where Puerto Rico, who doesn’t even get a vote in the electoral college, has more impact than several of our states? Who was it who set up the system where states which haven’t voted for a Democratic President ever – like Alaska and Utah – get votes commensurate NOT with the number of Democrats, but with the populace?

Now one of the DNC leaders has publicly stated – on television – that we needn’t worry: “Michigan and Florida will be credentialed 100%; they just won’t be able to vote for Hillary”! So the fix is in, folks!

The good old boys of the party picked out their guy, who succeeded in keeping his skeletons hidden in the closet until after Super Tuesday. Now we are expected to be stuck with him, and defend his questionable real estate dealings and his racist minister and his meddling in Kenyan politics.

Some of us warned about his lack of experience or achievement and his uninvestigated background. Now Hillary is the only insurance policy the Dems have left.

Obama seems to be inclined to brazen out his eroding support, citing states and delegates he racked up before we knew anything about him. At least Muskie and Hart, by withdrawing, demonstrated their loyalty to the Dems by not trying to lead the Party into oblivion! It’s apparently up to the superdelegates to find some backbone and keep us from nominating a fatally flawed candidate.

The real voting for the nomination is at the Convention – in August. Unfortunately, the interim will probably be spent trying to drive Hillary from the playing field. And then the DNC will wonder why they get trounced in November.

Yet again Senator Clinton takes the low road. While i believe that an equitable solution to the seating of the delegates of Michigan and Florida must be found I am deeply offended that Senator Clinton, after her own surrogates worked to strip them in the first place and that she herself signed a pledge in agreement, would trivialize the Civil Rights Movement etc. by making such a comparison solely because it suits her at this juncture. Such hubris on the part of Senator Clinton gets uglier by the day and sadly whatever positive legacy she and her husband had is being striped away in the service of her vanity and hunger for power.

Even though I’ve been for Obama from the beginning, I always had a great repect for Hillary.
Not any longer. I have absolutely zero respect for her now. In fact, she has become an embarrassment — to herself —- to her gender —- to her party —- and to this Country.
Shame on you Hillary Clinton! Shame on you!!

I can not understand why any body in the media is upset when Hillary Clinton says that ignoring the results of the Florida will result in the Republicans winning the State in the gene ral election. It has been a truth for a long time. I myself, wrote to the Democratic National Committee with the same forecast a couple of months ago, and I am not a news “reporter’, nor a blogger, nor attached to any campaign. I am just an ordinary citizen who graduated from the University of Florida.

Her primary argument is based on counting every vote, but to her, every vote apparently doesn’t include the folks who went through the enormous task of caucusing for their candidate, like I did here in Colorado. Those states went overwhelmingly for Obama in ways that make West Virginia look close.

And her secondary argument, that she is the stronger candidate rests on these polls that change on a daily basis. There is no margin of error in a delegate count. And Democrats have already chosen the strongest candidate, that’s why we have primaries.